Creation: We believe the Genesis account of creation as being neither allegory nor myth, but a literal, sudden and historical account of the direct, immediate and supernatural creative acts of the Triune Godhead without any evolutionary process whatsoever. We hold that the creation days of Genesis One were six literal 24-hour days.

Creation. We believe the Genesis account of creation as being neither allegory nor myth, but a literal, historical account of the direct, immediate, creative acts of God, in the Person of Jesus Christ, without any evolutionary process. We believe that God created the universe and all that was contained therein, in six literal, 24-hour periods.

We believe man, created by a direct work of God and not from any previously existing forms of life, is made up of body, soul and spirit. All men are descending from the historical Adam and Eve, first parents of the entire human race. Hence, we reject the Theory of Evolution, the Gap Theory, the Day-Age Theory, Theistic Evolution or any other secular or scientific, humanistic attempt to reason or discredit the Biblical account as unscriptural and false theories of origin. (Genesis 1-2; Exodus 20:11)

Reading the rest of the statement of faith, the level of delusion and insanity is breathtaking.

What is an intelligent person to do with a group of people who openly proclaim such utter nonsense?

156 Responses to “What do intelligent people do with this level of delusion?”

Creation: We believe the Genesis account of creation as being neither allegory nor myth, but a literal, sudden and historical account

Which Genesis account? In the first one, man came last after the trees and animals. But in the second one we came before them. They can’t both be right.

on 21 Feb 2011 at 8:16 am 2.Severin said …

Ben
I can not wait to see how will Trolls aka Busters explain it.

By my experiance, they will not answer at all. They always just “pass by” such “sensitive” questions. They neglect them.

Like children who hide their eyes and think no one can see them.
The problem does not exist if we do not “pick” at it.

on 21 Feb 2011 at 9:02 am 3.UR1OF2PEOPLE said …

Bet you don’t print this.You talk about 4reasons why Jesus should apear and quote the bible in your reality, fair enough, BUT you miss out the “truth” that is also in the bible. “seek FIRST the kingdome of God”. since you havent seeked first, that is the reason why you don’t get your answers and more so the vision you ask for.

The bible also speaks about you and those like you who speak your words in that it says “it is an evil generation who ask for miracles when they donot believe at all. and again on the other side “But blessed are those who have not seen but still believe”.
Well I was given up for dead the Doctor came told my parents that they were going to take the life support away, A nun was standing by praying, While I was supposed to be dead (at 11 years of age)I repeated her prayer and life was given to me.
6 months latter i contracted menengitus this the Doctors said would kill me, obviously not,
next an operation that would kill or cure me, once again no to be.

After being given up by men (Drs) i gave my life to jesus to have a turn. I tried his promises seeking first the kingdome of God in giving my self to Jesus. then i read that if we have faith the size of a mustartd seed we could move mountains ( obstacles in our lives).

On one occasion I went fishing with a friend the sea was too rough I commanded the sea to be calm in the name of Jesus and it be calm and we go much fish then left for home.

On another occasion I went to play golf with seven youth it was raining heavily i commanded the rain to stop and it did until we finished the game. then it pelted down and a youth said “Mr Stewart I didn’t know Jesus was that strong”

Shell i carry on? No i don’t have to there are many more and just for a mear man no person in particular. Only, one who loves Jesus, tried him out and found that it is in telling Jesus that I wish to have him give me a chance because the world does not love and i want to, and would He give me a chance. it is sad that your words are condemnatry and Jesus are empowering to those who love others.
But ..Peace to you.

on 21 Feb 2011 at 2:29 pm 4.Severin said …

3 UR1…(whatever)

I would appreciate you to tell me what makes YOU so special in god’s eyes that he decided to save your life, and to kill millions of other people, including children, who also prayed, and their parents, children, friends, nuns…(in some cases millions of people), prayed for them?

What is, by your opinion, the way god makes decisions about whom to let die (kill) and whom to spare?

I never found any pattern in his decisions about such important matter as death and life.

If there is no pattern, then only two possibilities exists:
a) God is gambling with our lives, in which case he is a lunatic
b) There is no god, and such events are coincidences.

If some pattern exists, please inform me about it.

on 21 Feb 2011 at 6:38 pm 5.Dutch said …

I can understand those churches beliefs. Science supports creation so why not? Microevolution we believe since it is proven. Macroevolution? No, absolutely no supporting evidence.

#8 Dutch One scientific fact? How about the sun never stood still, as in the Earth did not stop rotating, for two days so ancient Hebrews could slaughter their neighbors? How about the Genesis creation story is all wrong with respect to what animals appeared on the planet first- animals went from water to land to air? There is other poetic rubbish that is wrong too. But, only one thing disproves it.

Discovery.org is a dipshit evangelical website designed to keep the ignorant ignorant. The only connection they have to science is the refutation of science and reason.

Are you really this dumb?

on 21 Feb 2011 at 11:44 pm 11.Observer said …

Dutch- I read more of your stuff. Maybe you are just ignorant. What about the evolution of whales in the fossil record? There is a complete history of the evolution of a mammal. That is about as macro as it gets.

Why not read tuff written by folks with 50IQ pts, educations, and years experience and research behind them rather than the dull hucksters at the anti-knowledge website you listed. You should be embarrassed and ashamed.

on 22 Feb 2011 at 6:22 am 12.Severin said …

9 Dutch
Ha, ha, ha…

Those aren’t scientists!
People who put in their program that they
– supports research by scientists and other scholars challenging various aspects of neo-Darwinian theory;
– supports research by scientists and other scholars developing the scientific theory known as intelligent design;

People who think up RESULTS of scientific reserch (creationism), then support them (by money, probably), CAN NOT be scientists by definition.
Real scientists make their opinion according to results they achieve in their work, NOT v.v.!

Try MIT, NAS…

on 22 Feb 2011 at 7:18 am 13.David said …

Boy some things never change.
My name is David G. I am currently finishing up a book for publication that covers several of the topics addressed here.

With all due respect, very little represented on this site is even close to correct, be it scientifically, nor biblically.

What we are looking at here are extremist assumptions and opinions spawned from personal tragic experiences. Ages old misinformation, disinformation and plain old ignorance of the facts.

I my self started out a couple decades ago as an investigative researcher, and ended up Christian. The why and how of that is a long story. But let’s just say that I found Faith when grounded in the real truth to be a functional constant that works in unimaginable ways regardless of mans limitations.

Notwithstanding, out of all the people I have met in my life who have claimed to be “Christian” I have to honestly & respectfully say only a hand full of them actually fit the definition of “Christian”. The rest more or less seem to be just going through the motions of some moldy old ideology based on a skewed set of God in a box, drive through half truths, pagan, Greek, Roman and Germanic traditions, rites & rituals.

When it comes to the Bible, I find it odd that most people seem to forget how to read. It’s like they just look at the book and have no idea what they are looking at so they look up to some theologian or well intentioned pastor who unfortunately is only right about half the time regarding old testament interpretation. This was also true during the Crusades and any number of other points throughout history where the texts were used (even before they were condensed into a singular book) in contrast to their true intent as leverage to raise armies and butcher hundreds of thousands of human beings for profit.

The rapture is another one of those can’t read but it put coins in the donation box mistakes in history. Most Christians don’t even know that the Rapture concept has only been around since the early 1800’s and is based on misquotation of passages that where not meant for our time period but for the church in Philadelphia nearly 2000 years ago.

Even the concept of Christmas is wrong since it originates from the Roman winter celebration of the winter solstice god Saturn (Saturnalia). This is all weird when you consider that Jesus was actually born in Tishri which is equivalent to September – October, 6 months after John the Baptist was born. This is what it says in the Bible, but like I said people can’t read. They just prefer to remain stuck right or wrong in their traditions.

The same bad behavior follows the science crowd around as well. Honestly there is no more sacred cow, pious, and insanely ignorant of the truth group than the science community. They make just as many ridiculous assumptions as the Christians do. When they can’t figure something out they conger up some stupid concept like Higgs field, or quanta, which is nothing more than bandage science slapped on the chalk board to justify other nonsensical circular reasoning theories so that their research funding does not get cut off.

Billions has and continues to be spent on fairy tale research, while thousands starve to death from hunger, and people say Christians are bad.

Look at Darwin, why the hell is anyone still hanging their hat on that guy; he stole most of Lamarck’s research and then only got about half of that right. If the world worked the way he pre-supposed nearly everything on this planet would be dead already.

Even Darwin’s finches have recently shown how wrong he was, by surviving certain death caused by a sudden change in climate which wiped out their food source. The birds spontaneously adapted the physiology of their beaks in only two generations so that their species would survive off an alternate food source. This is indicative of an extraordinarily complex set of global physiological checks and balances built into a closed system.

There are volumes of documented cases of animals going through this dramatic rapid metamorphosis. The term is “spontaneous adaptation” it is the way the system actually works. It’s awesome when you really think about it. The whole planet and everything living on it is like one giant engineered machine.

What about the religious view of creation?

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

This first part is a prayer saying hey God you are great for making everything. It is simply an acknowledgment but not part of the seven days of creation. Sometime in the past something called God built big things that orbit other big things in large numbers a year before? Fifteen billion years before? Doesn’t say because it is not an important part of the story. We are just supposed to be smart enough not to make stupid assumptions about obvious things.

2 Now the earth was formless and empty,

In old Hebrew this actually can mean the earth was waste as if it had been wiped out by something.

Darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

God was preparing to Create, note that it does not say for how long, a day? A billion years? Note also that there is already water which God is hovering over.

As you read please take note of words throughout genesis such as “replenish” that are used deliberately in the text as if to point to something that existed prior.

Blah blah blah

What about Noah, Take by sevens into thy Ark. Not two of every animal, but seven males and seven females of each clean specie. Fourteen total animals per clean specie. Why is this such a big deal? Because anyone who knows anything about genetics knows that you need 14 sets of genes to perpetuate a higher specie. Anything less and it will die off. This is a bold faced genetic statement right smack in the middle of a story that predates the Sumerians by thousands of years.

I am not going to go into any more detail here, that is why I am writing a book. The point I am trying to make is that most people don’t know what the real truth is on either side of the fence, they are just guessing, making assumptions, or repeating assumptions spoken by someone else who they thought knew what was going on but never had an actual clue to stand on.

Wake up and do your own research :-)

on 22 Feb 2011 at 9:50 am 14.TGHO said …

@13

Wow. That’s one of the biggest loads of rubbish I’ve ever seen posted on the entire internet – and I’ve been using this tool since 1985.

3) Personal intepretations of the bible wildly different to accepted intepretations

4) Jesus is a mythical figure, not a historical one

5) Quantum theory is widely accepted by the majority of scientists. It doesn’t go away just because *you* don’t understand it

6) Blaming science for world hunger, when it is a political/logistics issue

7) Attacking Darwin when you clearly have absolutely no background in science, let alone biology

8) Thinking that the bible says anything remotely accurate about the initial stages of the universe

9) Thinking that the biblical flood actually happened

10) Your ludicrous comments about “14 sets of genes” – pure ignorance

11) The assumption we’ve not done our own research.

I think you need to start again, from scratch. Probably with primary school, as you appear to have missed pretty much every class since you were five years old.

on 22 Feb 2011 at 1:57 pm 15.Observer said …

#14 TGHO I say…

#13 Breathtaking idiocy. Lamarck vs. Darwin? The notion of quanta is a bandaid? How do photovoltaic cells work? LEDs? not to mention integrated circuits. David G- Sorry about your book, someone beat you to the punch… http://www.fixedearth.com This guy is as much a crackpot as you. Perhaps you should join forces to spread ignorance and retard the progress of man. You are an xtian after all.

When will the atheist here come with some real facts to back their delusions?

on 22 Feb 2011 at 6:55 pm 17.MrQ said …

Horatio,
Let’s start with what we do know and see who is delusional.

The Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. At that point in time there was no life on the planet.

Let’s go back to about 4 billion years ago? How much life was on our planet Earth at that time, Hor?

Ok, your turn Horatio…. and try dealing with the facts ONLY.

on 22 Feb 2011 at 7:06 pm 18.Horatio said …

Mr Q informs us “The Earth is some 4.5 billion years old. At that point in time there was no life on the planet.”

This is fact? Testable? Repeatable? Observable? So 100 years from now this will still be true Mr Q? Sure…. here is what you do. Mr Q, when you learn what a fact is, give us a jangle!

Fact: I just typed this on a laptop with an Intel i7 processor. Testable, repeatable and observable.

on 22 Feb 2011 at 7:30 pm 19.MrQ said …

The Earth is some 4.5 billion years old This is fact?

Yes. That’s what you told me. Have you changed your mind?

on 22 Feb 2011 at 7:50 pm 20.David said …

The concept of quanta falls into a catagory that is related however, it has nothing to do with how integrated circuits nor photovoltaic cells work.

Einstein could not figure out why the sun had not long since burned up its supply of fuel. However people don,t talk about that so much, what is talked about was other prior related puzzling research by Hertz and Lenard that inspired him, so he ruled out the idea of a continuous stream of wave energy. Based on max Planck’s work he conjured up the idea of energy being released in packets called quanta which are also know as photons.

Einstein was not stupid by any measure, however he was not infallible either and considering that some of Planck’s assumptions were also wrong as (As demonstrated in some zero point energy research) combined with there is no actual proof for any of this beyond the caulk board then you are right back to Einstines paradox. Sure you can cross connect conclusions that seem to directly connect to tangibly real world things. However, there are also other plausible as yet unexplored possible explanations for all of this. Yet people are so violently apposed to upsetting the normalcy bios that we are still stuck here in this primitive fossil fuel dependent death trap we have built around are selves.

There is also no proof for higgs, in fact a lot of scientists are now trying to side step higgs saying they hope they don’t find anything with regard to that theory, which is a polite way of saying they are finally realizing the theory is probably bogus.

Sorry Sir, I am not a crack pot. I have thirty five years of legitimate research behind what I know. Can you say the same?

on 22 Feb 2011 at 8:02 pm 21.David said …

Thanks for the link http://www.fixedearth.com/ it made me laugh a lot. These guys are not serious about this are they? this has to be some kind of joke spoof site. I mean come on this has to be the all time benchmark for wrong.

on 22 Feb 2011 at 8:10 pm 22.Tigerboy said …

David:

The way I read it, your entire screed reads like:

“Everyone is an idiot.”

“No one understands anything.”

“I’m the only one who has ever read a book!”

Good luck with that.

on 22 Feb 2011 at 8:47 pm 23.Horatio said …

No, Tigerboy that would sound like Observer aka Buster.

Fixed earth is a spoof. Observer has it under his bookmarks. He likes to link to it often.

David I do agree men are very fallible. Science once claimed the earth is flat now we know better. When endeavoring in the historical sciences man is at even a more of a disadvantage. The Darwinist make me laugh often with their cocksure attitudes when most of the time they are not even aware of what Darwinism claims at the moment. They me be on the cusp of claiming alien fertilization again.

That said, I like your approach. I like a man who goes about his own research and thinking outside the box. I may not agree with all you claim, but at least you are not parroting the work of others as fact.

on 22 Feb 2011 at 9:09 pm 24.MrQ said …

Hor,

Science once claimed the earth is flat now we know better

You are completely adorable with your (lack of) scientific knowledge. The flat Earthers were around during, how shall I say it, Biblical (stone age?) times. Science cured that notion.

Now on again to the discussion. The Earth is in the neighbourhood of 4.5 billion years old. At that time do you suppose that there was any life on this planet?

on 23 Feb 2011 at 12:43 am 25.Observer said …

Fixed Earth is run by a crack-pot, but he is a devout xtian.

David- What did Einstein get a Nobel Prize for? (Hint: It has to do with sorting out, guess what? Q-U-A-N-T-A (dumbass)) There have been successful companies founded on designing around quantum effects in IC design. These are known. How do you think a photomultiplier works? You really know shit about physics. Where Einstein fucked-up was he never quite got quantum mechanics. Regarding Higgs fields/particles WTF do think the HSC at CERN was built? You are either a cretin, or one of the more delightful trolls.

And by the way, what do you mean Einstein’s paradox? Do you mean EPR? If so, that has been written off to the earlier aforementioned, “Where Einstein fucked-up was he never quite got quantum mechanics.”

Hor- you are sooo cute. You miss the point, Science NEVER claimed the world was flat. That came from dipshit religionists and “thinkers” like you buddy David. The round earth goes back to Parmenides around 6C BC. He was a philosopher scientist. Rigorous thought after acquiring knowledge is how advancement is made. You and your ilk do neither.

on 23 Feb 2011 at 1:29 am 26.Horatio said …

Nose buster

Oh, nose buster what are we going to do with you. We have you throwing around F-bombs like a middle school bully attempting to look important. Stop trolling and find a useful purpose.

Buster, the Bible actually paints the earth as round, not flat. Flat earth has its roots by most every culture around the world wide Nose buster. It is not some religious derived belief as you attempt to portray it.

Now get out of the basement and get some supper. Momma waiting on you.

on 23 Feb 2011 at 2:59 am 27.Observer said …

Where does that crusty old nonsense argue for a round Earth? It’s been a long day. What’s wrong with a bit of earthy language now and then? You are not only cute, but oh-so delicate too! Tres enchante’. XXX

on 23 Feb 2011 at 7:52 am 28.David said …

I apologize that my comments come off as a self enlightened know it all. This is in no way my intention as I certainly do not know everything. I know just enough to know that what I used to believe in (like everyone else) as concrete scientific truth is flawed, and at best only half the truth. I used to be just like the nay Sayers here, but then I woke up.

I am certainly no better than anyone else or anymore deserving of anything. Which in a way is my whole point and as such I shall rephrase my position. We as specie know very little about what’s really going on, within and around us. And what we do know is often wrong.

People pat themselves on the back for our technological prowess. Look at what we have done are we not men! Our gleaming awards are proof of how great and noble & right we are in our heuristic thinking process. Have we not conquered the moon and the atom?

We are in reality nothing more than galactic toddlers proud of how we have discovered the source of the sound our rattles make.

Look what our brilliance has done to the world around us. Look at the vast failure by design systems we hang our children’s futures upon.

The wars, the starvation, the plagues. These are all reflections of our ignorance, pride and rebellion against a pre existing set of rules and standards we just don’t seem to be able to wrap around our stupid axels.

Science and religion alike invents new rules and standards to justify our need to be in control. We find that a couple of cogs that fit together here and there then suddenly that’s how everything must work, it’s the only way. Anyone who disagrees is summarily tossed to the side or worse. But then oops something does not exactly work under our current model. Things look bad really bad, so let us make a new model in the image of the old model let us justify the old ways in a new way that cannot be proven nor disproven so that the perception of wealth & prosperity can increase exponentially on into infinity.

We should all be very ashamed!

There are a collection of stunningly brilliant individuals who have come and gone over the centuries. True masters of the intellect, yet you will never hear about them or their amazing work simply because like so many other reflected failed systems we have created those who we could truly benefit from are not sought out, they are in contrast to the paradigm. Their talents are untapped like so many amazing musicians who never become rock stars. Wherefore they simply slip away unnoticed into unwritten history.

Do I know everything? No way!
Is there anyone out there who does? Not likely!
Will man ever get on the right track? He didn’t that last couple of times we were nearly wiped out so it is not likely we will this time around either.

on 23 Feb 2011 at 8:19 am 29.TGHO said …

@16 Horatio,

Please provide any non-biblical and non-completely proven to be false historical evidence for the actual existence of a divine Jesus. It’s highly likely that a Jewish preacher/”holy man” with a similar name existed at that time, but before a skeptic such as myself accepts any claims of the supernatural we require actual *evidence* not speculation.

As to your question around real facts – ask and ye shall receive.

@20 David,

Stellar nucleosynthesis was not proposed until 1939 (Bethe), and the creation of heavier nuclei wasn’t fully understood until 1954, when Hoyle presented his work on the topic. Considering Einstein died in 1955, it’s a litte harsh to expect him to know *everything*. It’s obvious that your understanding of physics is extremely weak.

As for your claim of 35 years of study in this area – I greatly doubt your claim, Sir. What disciplines have you formally studied at university?

@26 Horatio

Mate, you’ve not read that bible much I guess.

Daniel 2:35 “…became a great mountain, and filled the whole earth” – only possible on a flat earth.

Isaiah 40:22 “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth…” – flat earth again.

Matt 4:8 “Again, the devil took him to a very high mountain and showed him all the kingdoms of the world and their splendor” – wouldn’t work on a globe…

Isaiah 11:12 “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth” – a globe doesn’t have corners.

Face it mate, it is religion that claims a flat earth. The concept of a spherical earth can be traced back to the Greek philosophers of the 6th century BCE. That is 600 years before your christian myths commenced.

on 23 Feb 2011 at 8:24 am 30.TGHO said …

@28 David,

You posted whilst I was writing my reply, apologies.

Nice sentiments, and I agree that we don’t know everything. However, as a race, we’re learning, and we’re learning fast. Science is the main tool which enables us to examine, test and evaluate data effectively and efficiently. Religion is a side-track, originally used before science came along. In ancient times, humans used religion in an attempt to explain the unknown. In modern times, science supplants religion, as it gives us better results.

Your claim that there’s been “true masters” that we’ve never heard about requires support. Please provide evidence of this.

on 23 Feb 2011 at 1:52 pm 31.Horatio said …

“Face it mate, it is religion that claims a flat earth.”

Well, other than the fact that ancient civilizations around the world (Rome, China, India) believed in a flat earth……face it mate you are wrong….again.

Despite contrary assertions, the fact of a spherical earth was clearly proclaimed in the Bible by the prophet Isaiah nearly twenty-eight centuries ago … “It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, and its inhabitants are like grasshoppers [etc.]” Isaiah 40:22 (NKJ). When Isaiah wrote this verse he used the Hebrew word “khug” to describe the shape of the earth. Although this word is commonly translated into the English word “circle,” the literal meaning of this word is “a sphere.”

Sorry TGHO…

on 23 Feb 2011 at 4:08 pm 32.Lou said …

If the circle is in fact a sphere, then for the inhabitants on the opposite surface of the sphere, “He” would be sitting below them. LOL!

on 24 Feb 2011 at 5:25 am 33.Tigerboy said …

Christ! Who dives a damn whether the word “khug” translates to mean “circle” or “sphere?” Any claims that the Bible conveys special scientific knowledge are absurd.

The book is poorly-written and unbelievably boring! It’s fetishistic in it’s love of animal sacrifice, and with it’s constant obsessions about virginity. Throw that book in the dustbin!

It’s patently OBVIOUS that much of the collective scientific knowledge of mankind, as well as much social progress, has been achieved whilst in a constant uphill battle against the thought-crushing tyranny of dogmatic religious philosophy.

How can anyone deny it?

From Galileo, writing his astronomical observations in poetic code (because he feared reprisal from the Church), to the blatant use of the Biblical defense of slavery to justify the building of America on the scarred, bloody backs of enslaved Africans, to the century-long battles over Evolutionary Theory, right through to the present day political battles over stem-cell research, and to arbitrary laws about which U.S. citizens get to pay all their taxes without enjoying the basic right to marry the partner of their choice, and to the comical attempts to represent “intelligent design” as having any objective, scientific merit, and to force it into the public school curricula, to the highly-endangered freedom to decide for one’s self what happens within one’s own uterus.

People’s ignorant, faith-inspired fear of scientific and social progress is revolting, barbaric, and largely a symptom of fear and a failure to understand simple ideas. Backward thinking. Actually, “faith” equals “no thinking.”

Any modernity, scientific insight, equality, or dignity we have achieved has been IN SPITE of the best efforts of religion to keep us in the dark.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 7:01 am 34.David said …

@ 29
Not trying to be critical here:
Stellar nucleosynthesis presupposes that the sun is fusing hydrogen and helium as a fuel source.

No one has ever dipped a spoon into the core of the sun for an actual sample so we have to rely on a packaged educated guess which has been passed along to some people who are very good at math with the expectations that they can make it all work on paper.

Man has no tangible sustained fusion device in hand to study by comparison so it’s all guess work. And we only sort of understand the crude workings of fission but that’s not fusion.

The truth is we really don’t know for sure.

We don’t know what dark mater is.
We don’t know what gravity is or even if it exists as theorized by some.
We don’t understand a lot of stuff, but we pretend like we do

That’s why they are called theories, they are just a hypothesis backed up by what ever limited evidence we think are facts.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 7:12 am 35.David said …

Four corners = The four corners of the zodiac

Also know as the four living creatures because they continually move through the sky
Leo Face of a lion

Scorpio Face of an eagle( used to be depicted as an eagle and not a scorpion)

Aquarius Face of a man
Taurus Face of a bull

The Earth actually has six metaphorical corners if you include the poles

on 24 Feb 2011 at 8:13 am 36.TGHO said …

@31 Horatio,

“Chuwg” roughly translates as “circle” or “vault”. “Khug” is not actually a Hebrew word – you’ve fallen into an apologist mistake there. The Hebrew word for sphere is “kadúr”.

Score at halftime:
Horatio 0 TGHO 2

@34 David,
You are making the common mistake of a non-scientist. You are confusing the scientific definition of the word “Theory” with the layperson’s definition of the word “Theory”. Furthermore, you are also confused around “fact” and “evidence”.

Let me explain to you some simple scientific terms, so maybe you can understand.

We measure stuff. These measurements are written down. This is DATA. Data is evidence. Data is also FACT. Data can be measured repeatedly. Data can be gathered consistently. An example of data is the colour of the sun – yellow. Each day, someone can look at the sun and write down “sun coloured yellow”. This is data, evidence and fact. Now, a hypothesis is an idea to explain WHY the sun is yellow, for example. A hypthosis is proposed to try to explain some data. When we have more data, we check the hypothesis. If the data supports the hypothesis, we continue to gather data. If the data does not fit with the hypothesis, we discard that hypothesis and come up with a new one.

Eventually, we have a great huge pile of data, and many hypothi covering the various components. At that point, someone proposes a theory which explains the overall working of the situation. Scientific theories are supported by mountains of data. They are not just make up of smoke and mirrors. For a theory to be discarded, someone has to come up with a *better* theory, that explains even more of the data than the current theory. Generally, that’s how Nobel Prizes are won.

As for your requirement of us going to the sun to dip a spoon in it – we don’t need to. Ever heard of chromatography? We can measure the amount of hydrogen, helium, etc., witin the sun, and check again one year later – which we did, for many decades. And we found the amount of hydrogen going down, and the amount of helium going up. Huh, DATA. Looks like we need a theory… Oh, Hoyle put one forward in 1954, how about that!

We understand fusion and fission quite well. Heard of nuclear power generators? Fission. Heard of hydrogen bombs? Fusion. We’ve been able to generate fusion in a lab since the 1950’s. We regularly smash atoms together in particle accelerators right now. We actually pretty much “do know for sure”.

Yes, we don’t understand a lot of stuff. That doesn’t mean we’re never going to understand it, or that we can’t understand it. We’re learning more every day, and there’s no reason to believe that we won’t solve some really big mysteries this decade. With science.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 3:53 pm 37.Observer said …

TGHO- Your patience is a thing of wonder. About a year ago I too would write at length as you do trying to lift the veil as it were. I did not get far. Now I mainly vent my spleen.

Anyway, keep up the good work. Folks such as David, Hor, et al. are ruining the United States. They are far worse for the health of a republic than any external threat posed by a load of jabbering jihadists no matter how well armed.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 4:48 pm 38.MrQ said …

Hor claims:

ancient civilizations around the world (Rome, China, India) believed in a flat earth

But previously he alleged:

Science once claimed the earth is flat now we know better.

Methinks Hor has his head firmly wedged up his ass. Next thing he’ll try and claim is that scientists once believed that the Earth was the centre of the universe.

So, once again, Hor. We can both agree that our planet Earth is 4.5 billion years old. At what point did life appear? Was the Earth created with life already present? I know the questions causes you discomfort, but the religiously inclined want answers. Try and not digress or obfuscate. It’s really a simple question.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 5:14 pm 39.Rostam said …

“Earth was the centre of the universe.”

Wasn’t the earth believed to be a centre? Seems to me it was.

David.

What a bunch of dung. Open a book please and learn. You are not a scientist and it is painfully obvious.

Ancient scientist, such as they were, did believe the earth to be flat. I could list many other uh-ohs if need be since science is wrong a lot! Geez, such childish denials.

TGHO,

I saved the best for last. You state “Khug” is not actually a Hebrew word”. Wrong, it is a Hebrew word and can be translated circle or sphere. I can reference a concordance if you have the cash. Careful which atheist blogs you frequent.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 5:18 pm 40.Rostam said …

David,

Sorry, I reference you in my post. It should have been TGHO.

TGHO stated:

“Yes, we don’t understand a lot of stuff. That doesn’t mean we’re never going to understand it, or that we can’t understand it.”

David this means, once you get through all his garbage, he agrees with you.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 5:59 pm 41.MrQ said …

Rostam:

Ancient scientist, such as they were, did believe the earth to be flat.

Be a darling and help me out: define what “ancient scientist” means and please name some of them. When I think “early scientist” Galileo comes to mind…you know, the scientist-guy who disputed the biblical/church claim of Earth at centre of the universe.

As a bonus, Rostam, since you seem so interested in science. Since the planet Earth is about 4.5 billion years old, when did life spring up? Oh, and if you’re confused about the age of the Earth, verify the date with Horatio.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 8:16 pm 42.Thomas said …

Some of you need to get educated on the flat earth myth. It does not have its roots in Christianity.

or look at many other sites dealing with the myth. I had thought this was a dead issue.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 8:30 pm 43.Lou said …

“Ancient scientist [sic], such as they were, did believe the earth to be flat.”

Define “ancient scientists.” Even the ancient Greeks (6th century BC) realized that the Earth was spherical in shape. No legitimate scientist (that I’m aware of) since then disputed that the earth was a sphere.

Just because some people since that time still believed in a flat earth doesn’t mean or even imply that scientists of that time also thought that.

on 24 Feb 2011 at 9:47 pm 44.Lou said …

“Some of you need to get educated on the flat earth myth. It does not have its roots in Christianity.”

Who said that it did?

on 24 Feb 2011 at 10:54 pm 45.Severin said …

39 Rostam
“David.
What a bunch of dung.”

What would Freud say?

on 25 Feb 2011 at 12:00 am 46.Thomas said …

“No legitimate scientist (that I’m aware of) since then disputed that the earth was a sphere.”

Who said they did?

on 25 Feb 2011 at 3:04 am 47.Lou said …

Thomas,

If you’re going to try to play games with me, then don’t quote my reply to Rostam’s “Ancient scientist, such as they were, did believe the earth to be flat” out of context. I didn’t quote you out of context.

Again, I ask you, who posted that the “flat earth myth” had its roots in Christianity? I don’t think anybody did. Unless I’m mistaken, nobody other than you even mentioned Christianity in this thread.

on 25 Feb 2011 at 7:20 am 48.TGHO said …

@37 Observer,

Thanks for your words. :)

@39 Rostam,

Next time you may want to widen your sources – include some people who actually read and speak hebrew. Might be worthwhile, rather than just opening your mouth and letting the stupid fall out (figuratively speaking).

As for me not being a scientist – believe what you want. Even if I wasn’t a scientist, I bet I can out-think you whilst I sleep. Point in fact – there is no such thing as an “ancient scientist”, i.e. someone in pre-biblical times who applied modern scientific methodolody. What there was, were ancient (Greek) philosophers – and they didn’t think the world was flat. As has been mentioned several times already in this thread. So either you can’t read, or you’re just too lazy to actually let your brain do any thinking.

Yes, science is wrong a lot. So it self-corrects. Whereas religion is wrong all the time, and yet strictly adheres to out dated, bronze age thinking which has no use in this modern world. The sheer amount of mental gymnastics a theist has to go through to ensure they don’t go completely mad is utterly astounding.

on 25 Feb 2011 at 8:20 am 49.David said …

This is going quite well thank you for your answers.

So let me ask you this question.

The FBI has within their employ a great many very skilled investigators and scientists graduates for some of the best universities from nearly all disciplines whose expertise they call upon daily to solve and head off crimes. When a crime is committed where in the FBI is involved, great care is taken in collecting & analyzing bits of information. Refining it into a series of facts that other experts can analyze and draw a hypotheses from. Then more experts again review the data to see if it can stand trial. And finally to court it goes were a judge and jury decides beyond a reasonable doubt if the individual is guilty or not, and if convicted what the sentence might be.

This powerful carefully run machine has sent a great many people to jail for a very long time. And there they sit until years latter a new tool emerges just one genetic test and the person who was convicted by the great and perfect machine of science is set free. Even to this day the actual culprits in these cases roam free.

So the question is this:
Was the evidence the scientists analyzed which conclusively proved the guilt of the wrongfully imprisoned individual in error?

Were the methods they used to analyze the materials and data in error?

Was the task outside the capabilities of the individual’s scientific skill level?

Or is it that sometimes things appear to be yet they are not as they appear.

The trouble here guys, is what I have been saying all along.

I used to be like you and then I woke up.

I sound like a layman because I discovered that all the rules and principles that I used to stubbornly defend just like you are doing now, are not as set in stone as I once though. There are too many inexplicable anomalies that just can not be explained away with traditional science alone. Don’t get me wrong I am still a big fan of string theory and who does not love Einstein, but really he was just a man like you and your friends. He wasn’t perfect and died with several nagging what does it all mean un-answered questions on his mind.

This is fun. You call me dangerous? And then go further by attempting to categorize me into a group of individuals you are apparently afraid of. Notwithstanding, a group you feel you have dominance over because of your intellectual prowess. That’s an interesting yet expected response. I suppose that your prejudicial principals are inferring that I am a religious radical bent on the destruction of the American way of life. Hmm.

Do you even know who I am?

Not likely.

You are making assumptions about the who and what I may or may not be based on inconclusive and I might add unreliable data. Your assumption is arbitrary & capricious, but isn’t that the whole point as it reflects a deep rooted systemic point of view I find very fascinating.

Consider this:

(a) Perhaps I am a student trying to act like I know something about everything.

(b) Perhaps I am a brilliant seventeen year old girl masquerading as an older man simply because she does not feel her opinions would be accepted due to her age or perhaps gender.

(c) Maybe I am just some gutter snipe sitting at some library computer who recently graduated from the temple of higher learning called Wikipedia.

(d) Ahh then again though. I could be a semi retired university professor who knows from experience exactly what sort of retort is required to elicit a predictable behavior. I may have had similar rhetorical conversations with hundreds of individuals & their ilk on dozens of other blogs. Could this just be a big sociology experiment? I said I was writing a book did I not. Did I actually specify what the book was about?

Despite your apparent intelligence and presumed hands on experience, the point is you don’t know for sure do you.

I predict out of habit you will play upon (c) above, while the inherent possibilities interlaced within (d) will linger with you.

By the way Atomic weapons come in two flavors Fission or Fusion. But you knew that already.

:-)

on 25 Feb 2011 at 11:44 am 50.TGHO said …

@49 David,

Dude, you need to share whatever it is you’re smoking, because it’s obviously top grade shit.

1) I don’t care who you are

2) You’re about as dangerous as a bowl of jelly

3) You’re still wrong

Seriously, if you don’t understand the difference between judicial evidence and scientific evidence, I really can’t help you. Like I said in my comment #14, you need to go back to primary school, because your thinking is so screwed up you need to start again from scratch.

on 25 Feb 2011 at 1:33 pm 51.Rostam said …

“What there was, were ancient (Greek) philosophers – and they didn’t think the world was flat”

Gosh! really TGHO? So that is why philosphy and scicnce have been so entwined.

I suppose you have never heard of the pre-Socratic philosophers? Hmmm? We now know you are not a historian. Look them up and educate your mind.

But listen, thanks for the insults. It gives a glimpse into the character of the person we encounter here. Not only are you not a scientist, you don’t own a Hebrew Lexicon either.

Thomas,

You are correct. Every time I come here is seems someone post a link to the flat earth society as if this is suppose to insult Christians.

on 25 Feb 2011 at 1:38 pm 52.Rostam said …

David,

Just read your post. Great analogy but I doubt you will get the rank and file to think evidence, facts and interpretation.

on 25 Feb 2011 at 8:38 pm 53.Severin said …

49 David
“This powerful carefully run machine has sent a great many people to jail for a very long time.“
This „powerful, carefully run machine“ is influenced by general level of social conscience and politics in much bigger extent than science „machine“.
Then, unfortunately for victims who were executed or spent their lives in prison, BUT fortunately for human society, things are slowly getting in order. Because both, social order AND science are progressing. There are less and less such tragical cases.

Similar with science:
– Yes, evidences that scientists use to prove something could be bad/wrong, and they frequently are
– Yes, methods scientists use to prove something, can be wrong/bad, and they frequently are
– Yes, tasks sometimes ARE out of capability of an individual skill level, or the skill level of a team
– Yes, things, frequently, DO appear the way that turns scientists to wrong conclusions (things aren’t always as they look like at the first view)

Then, step by step (from flat earth to the globe, from sun orbiting earth, to earth orbiting sun, from „nebulas“ to galaxies….), science is PROGRESSING.
This is the BASIC „property“ of the science:
NOT to take anything for granted!
NOT to accept anything without scepticism/questioning!
To question, and re-question EVERYTHING!

Only religions still base their „truths“ on idiotic bronze age „scriptures“, and claim they are „eternal truth“. They FORBID to apply skepticism and questioning to their idiotic “truths”.
They expect educated and intelligent individuals TODAY to believe someone „created“ earth using a „poof“ method, and created man (having 98% genes of primates!) from mud(dust, dirt…?).

Pure idiocy!

Read #48 TGHO again!

on 25 Feb 2011 at 9:39 pm 54.Lou said …

First they were “ancient scientists” (whatever that is), now they’re pre-Socratic philosophers.

Rostam, can you back-peddle any faster?

Regardless, this entire discussion about the flat-earth – science connection is 100% irrelevant, especially to the topic.

The closest we get is “khoog” which is seen as root words of “chuwg”. Or maybe “chag khag” which sort of translates as “(solemn) feast (day), sacrifice, solemnity”. In modern hebrew, “ch’ag” is “festival”.

Checking with some friends who speak Hebrew, they confirm the outputs of the Lexicon.

So my original comment stands – you need to widen your sources. You need to stop swallowing the crap the christian apologists feed you, and start engaging your brain. Now if you don’t want to do that, then I also stand by my comment of calling you either lazy or unwilling to challenge your beliefs.

As for you thinking I’m not a scientist – go ahead and think whatever you want, I really don’t care.

on 26 Feb 2011 at 6:03 am 56.Rostam said …

Lou I ask this question with great sincerity. Are you really this clueless? Do you not realize these Pre-socratic philosophers concentrated on defining problems and paradoxes that became the basis for later mathematical, scientific and philosophic study?

They believed the world to be flat, not the Christians. As a Christian I greatly admire true science. It reflects the hallmark of God’s fascinating work. Getting tougher to remain an atheist.

When talking science, it is not “admiring” that matters, but understanding and (critical, and always questioning, sceptical) accepting.

You can not understand and accept science, if you believe in bronze age idiocies!
What can you admire in science, if you do not accept evolution?
How can you understand science, if you accept idea of “poof creation” of earth, that is out of any chemistry, physics, mathematics, biology, logic?

How can you say anything about science, if you beieve in big flood and idiocies about collecting a pair of each existing animal onto a boat, in order to “save” them?

Did god allow people to develop science to opose his word? Does not sound like “fascinating work”, more like idiocy!

on 26 Feb 2011 at 1:31 pm 58.Rostam said …

How can you understand science, if you accept idea of “poof creation”

Poof creation? Would you be referencing the Big Bang? When you eliminate a creator that is all you have left….POOF! lol, I mean really.

Are you one of the “alien seeding” believers? I know that has been put forth as science but I just can’t buy into that.

There is not one fact in science I do not believe and find fascicnating. God is incredible.

on 26 Feb 2011 at 2:57 pm 59.Anonymous said …

Rostam, you are ignorant, intolerant, and bigoted. You ridicule others for their beliefs because they differ from yours, but your beliefs are no better or credible. You are only hear to agitate and harass those whom you feel superior to. You should take your closed mind, and your brain washing practice, and get a life!

on 26 Feb 2011 at 4:28 pm 60.Gods = Ancient Aliens said …

Gods that were created by mankind are actually aliens that visited earth a long time ago and humans thought they were Gods. Do some research.

on 26 Feb 2011 at 5:35 pm 61.Observer said …

Rosta- You seem to be still clueless. This talk of ancient Greek philosophers and scientists is pretty wacky. There was no distinction between science and philosophy at that point in time. What is more, there was consensus Earth was spherical ( the oblate spheroid was too much to hope for ).

I don’t see you as bigoted; you are certainly ignorant and likely not too smart.

DAVID- You are not dangerous to anyone aside yourself and those who may depend on you. Great people working at the FBI? Are you kidding? The may be great compared to the usual dolt working in law enforcement, but that is a one-eyed man in the land of the blind being king argument.

What is worse, you do not understand, or choose to ignore the point of science. There is nothing to point to “God” in science, unless you think “God” is the garbage pail of ignorance like the irreducible complexity folks. You are clearly uneducated. Why not try to get one? Isn’t there something in 12-step programs where you acknowledge something greater than your self in order to make progress? You should acknowledge there are thousands of people greater than yourself, and they have graduate degrees in science. Learn from them.

on 26 Feb 2011 at 5:51 pm 62.Horatiio said …

Nose Buster!

I always wondered if it was possible to be a narrow-minded-bigoted-racist-nazi-elitist-christaphobe narcissist. Well, you prove my hypothesis correct. Congratulations on your one accomplishment.

Poof creation is quite funny Rosta. None of our atheist will acknowledge this is their belief but there is no other alternative for their worldview. Puff the magic universe is quite silly!

What they prefer you to believe is “pay not attention to the man behind the curtain”. Yes creation LOOKS designed and CREATED but it really is not. Too much wizard of OZ for these folks.

on 26 Feb 2011 at 8:28 pm 63.Severin said …

57 Rostam
“When you eliminate a creator that is all you have left….POOF! lol, I mean really.”

If god does not need a creator, if he “just exists”, without being created, I can’t see any logical obstacle to apply the same logic to matter/energy.

If a “poof” (big bang) occured, it was one of many transformations of matter/energy from one form to another, according to natural laws.

So, my “poof” was not “creation from nothing”, only a violent transformation of matter energy from one form to another. Matter and energy that already existed.
We can frequently see small “big bangs” in present universe (novas, supernovas…), why wouldn’t one of them be bigger?

Your god “poofed” earth from nothing, and “created” men from mud, without being created himself.

LOL, and you BELIEVE it!
Who is naive here?

on 26 Feb 2011 at 8:42 pm 64.Severin said …

61 Horatio
“Puff the magic universe is quite silly!”

Yes! Yes! Yes!
That is EXACTLY what we atheists say!
Thank you!
Finally, you agree with us!

But, didn’t you claim not so long ago (yesterday?) that god magically “poofed” earth (universe?) from nothing?

The pre-Socratic philosophers, such as Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes didn’t use modern scientific techniques. Pythagoras (also pre-Socratic) is assumed to have come up with a spherical earth model. Still 600 years before christians existed. When christians did arrive on the scene they, like 90% of the population at the time, believed the Earth was flat. As the levels of education increased, this belief was discarded. Cripes mate, there are some christians right now who still believe in the flat earth (see http://theflatearthsociety.org/cms/).

TGHO 2 Rostam 0

on 26 Feb 2011 at 9:36 pm 67.TGHO said …

@61 Horatio

“creation LOOKS designed and CREATED” – really? How? In what way? Please provide some examples.

“Puff the magic universe is quite silly!” – agree. Which is a good, solid argument against the existence of your god-being.

on 26 Feb 2011 at 9:39 pm 68.TGHO said …

@51 Rostam,

Mate, if you can’t handle the heat, get out of the kitchen.

I use two Hebrew Lexicons, both online, and both freely accessible. The one at Bible Study Tools and Strong’s Concordance (for some reason, if I put the links in, my comment is marked as spam *shrug* – just Google them). You won’t find “khug” in either of them. I would suggest rather than sticking your head in the sand you acknowledge that you’re incorrect here.

The pre-Socratic philosophers, such as Thales, Anaximander and Anaximenes didn’t use modern scientific techniques. Pythagoras (also pre-Socratic) is assumed to have come up with a spherical earth model. Still 600 years before christians existed. When christians did arrive on the scene they, like 90% of the population at the time, believed the Earth was flat. As the levels of education increased, this belief was discarded. Cripes mate, there are some christians right now who still believe in the flat earth (Google the Flat Earth Society for a laugh).

TGHO 2 Rostam 0

on 26 Feb 2011 at 9:42 pm 69.TGHO said …

@57 Rostram,

Oh please. Now you don’t comprehend the Big Bang. Sheesh, have you finished high school yet? Where are you, Alabama? Homeschooled? By the nostrils of Gzortch, read a book that’s not the bible please.

on 27 Feb 2011 at 7:24 am 70.David said …

@ 50 Your trope is a commendable attempt to stay a position of self certainty.

1) I don’t care who you are

(Your point is? My comments were allegorical. You and your lackeys are making irrelevant assumptions, attempting to categorize the what & who you think I am so that you can figure out how to maintain what you perceive is control over the comments of others in this forum)

2) You’re about as dangerous as a bowl of jelly

@37.Observer said … “Folks such as David, Hor, et al. are ruining the United States. They are far worse for the health of a republic than any external threat posed by a load of jabbering jihadists no matter how well armed.”

(I was formerly categorized as dangerous to the good of the republic. Now I have been reduced to the level of rendered fat for the purposes of your threat scale? Please redefine)

3) You’re still wrong

( Question, do you feel I am wrong out of ignorance or do you think I am by choice being deliberately misleading. Or do you feel I personally believe that I am truly speaking aphorisms from my point of view?)

“I really can’t help you. Like I said in my comment #14”

(I am not seeking you help, nor do I require it. However, it is quite obvious that you feel in control here. Therefore, you place yourself in a position of responsibility, perhaps ordained in your mind to pastor over the rantings of the illiterates.

on 27 Feb 2011 at 8:02 am 71.TGHO said …

@69 David,

To continue in kind:

1) My comment “I don’t care who you are” simply means that I take anyone I argue with on the internet at face value. Honestly, there is no way to actually ascertain 100% that anyone is telling the truth here and anyone can claim anything without repercussions (“I’m an astronaut!” or “I’m the President of Uganda!” can’t be disproven). You could be any four of those people you listed – I don’t care. I’ll treat you as a reasonably intelligent, educated human being until proven otherwise.

1a) I have no lackeys here.

1b) I have no, nor do I desire to have, any control over the comments here. Post or do not post, it bothers me not.

2) I am not Observer.

2a) Don’t assume that everyone you debate on the internet comes from the same country as you.

Thus:
2b) I don’t see you as dangerous. Someone to debate with, bounce ideas off, etc., but dangerous? No.

3) I don’t know. I’m simply pointing out errors in your arguments. The reason why you’re making those arguments are your own.

4) My comment about not being able to help you was simply facetious – your arguments are so in error that you’d have to really go back to basics to relearn a great deal to understand where you are going wrong.

Unless of course, you’re just playing a game – fine by me, like I said, I treat the conversation at face value.

on 27 Feb 2011 at 9:02 am 72.David said …

Darwin (I am heavily paraphrasing here)-

defined evolution as a very long nearly invisible process.

However, we now know definitively from an epigenetic perspective this is not true. This is why modern scientists now refer to fits and starts when describing a creatures adaptation characteristics. http://www.hras.org/sw/swoct07.html

spontaneous adaptation is now the accepted theory.

Creatures will spontaneously mutate within only a few generations due to an extreme change in available food, or even a dominant breading pair’s temperament. Entomologists have noted for decades how quickly their little friends can adapt to overcome whatever threatens their existence.

Bad word placement on my part what I meant to say was not “14 sets of genes” but 14 clean individuals. Meaning 14 individual creatures of the same specie who where void of any genetic defects.

The possibility of this being a functional possibility came by way of an epigenetic conference I attended.

Contemporarily science dictates a requirement of roughly 150 breeding pair’s minimum to perpetuate a higher mammal. However if you had say 14 pristine original non defective creatures it is theoretically possible this could work.

9) Thinking that the biblical flood actually happened

There have been many floods through out the history of this planet. However, I did not say anything about the flood of Noah I simply made reference to the number of clean animals.

It is ludicrous to assume that anyone could load everything required to sustain two of every creature on the planet for 144 straight days within a barge even if it was as large as an aircraft carrier. Especially if there were 14 of each clean specie as the text indicates. When factored into the total ark load equation would make the whole concept a Mathematical improbability.

If people new how to read Hebrew, or even the Bible. They would understand that the only living things that were on the ark were Noah’s extended family, a collection of domesticated farm animals & the supplies they required for the trip and beyond.

The flood of Noah did not wipe out everything as is ignorantly presumed because (A) there is no definitive archeological evidence to support this and (B) the Bible talks about individuals such as the suns of Anak who were descendants of giants predating the flood surviving on into the time of David.

It is even possible that the flood of Noah was a continentally isolated event. True there are dozens of flood stories that span the globe I just honestly do not see the connecting evidence people pre-suppose is there to support a single boat concept.

My take is that it was a series of catastrophic isolated events spanning hundreds if not thousands of years wherein there were survivors who escaped those floods with their families and animals on boats.

All of these stories over time have merged into a single story which has clouded the truth. This is not to say the biblical text is wrong. However, I believe the perspective of the people who lived thousands of years ago molded the story to reflect something more within the realm of their limited understanding.

on 27 Feb 2011 at 9:35 am 73.TGHO said …

@71 David,

Your understanding of genetics is incorrect.

1) One thing which is setting my teeth on edge is your usage of the word “specie” – this is not a word. Seriously. It is “species”.

2) There is no such thing as an organism without genetic mutations. There is no such thing as your definition of a “clean” animal. It simply does not exist. The majority of mutations are benign, some are deleterious. Every single creature upon this planet right now, and all the way back through history, had at any specific time, several genetic defects within them.

3) “Spontaneous adaptation” is not the “accepted theory”. The two currently accepted drivers of evolution are natural selection and genetic drift. Spontaneous adaptation has been proposed, but it is still yet to be generally accepted. More data needed (refer back to my comment #36 regarding data).

4) What your entomologist (or did you mean ornithologists?) friends are noticing is genetic drift across a population, not spontaneous adaptation. Any particular reason why you switched from birds to insects there?

5) Glad to see you reject the biblical flood. Refreshing. If you’re talking about Founder Effects (Google it), you need to understand the impact they have on a population, and the evolutionary outcomes that flow on from those events.

on 27 Feb 2011 at 6:21 pm 74.Horatiio said …

“1a) I have no lackeys here.”

Well sure you do. His name is TGHO. But I would go with slackey!

LOL

When will you guys grow up and stop with the fairy tales. In order for evolution to be true, God must exist. Mathematics, philosophy and common sense dictate this reality. There is no puff the magic universe. She doesn’t exist.

TGHO,

or should I say slackey. Pre-socatic philosophers WERE the scientist of the day. You obviously are not aware of their work. Nice two volume set avaliable at Amazon I’m sure. BTW, I checked my Hebrew lexicon (not online) – Khug is a word. You are wrong….again.

on 27 Feb 2011 at 6:44 pm 75.MrQ said …

Hor,
Since you are so sure of god waving a magic wand to create the universe some 13 to 14 billion years ago, then can you answer me the question I have for you from post #24:

The Earth is in the neighbourhood of 4.5 billion years old. At that time do you suppose that there was any life on this planet?

on 27 Feb 2011 at 9:27 pm 76.TGHO said …

@72 Horatiio,

Why the extra “i”?

Dude, I can’t be a lackey of myself. Seriously man. And you’re just being utterly ridiculous now. God has to exist for evolution to be true? Really? Wow. So rather than actually engage your brain, and think about anything we’ve discussed here, you’re quite happy to wallow in your programming.

For some reason my simple comment of “pre-Socratic philosophers didn’t use modern scientific techniques” defies your comprehension. Yes, the pre-Socratic philosophers were the scientists of the day – I’m not arguing that point. I’m pointing out that the science that they used is quite different to modern science. Try to wrap your poorly educated brain around this very simple concept please.

Finally, your continued insistence that “khug” is a Hebrew word, when all evidence points to the contrary. Continued denial of fact is a form of insanity and/or self-delusion. So either you’ve drunk the kool-aide so deeply you simply can’t see anything outside your little bubble of theology, or you’re actually mentally damaged.

I feel sorry for you, to be honest. If you hadn’t been so brainwashed and ruined from birth, maybe you could have contributed something to modern society.

on 27 Feb 2011 at 9:46 pm 77.Horatiio said …

“God has to exist for evolution to be true? Really? Wow.”

Uh, yeah. But if you can show met evidence of how nano-machines, DNA and consciousness evolved without need for intelligence guiding the process I would be more than willing to reconsider. But please, stick with the scientific method.

“pre-Socratic philosophers didn’t use modern scientific techniques”

Really? Sort of like computer programmers don’t use the same programs as they did 30 years ago? Huh, imagine that. Exactly who claimed they did use the same methodologies lackey?

“Finally, your continued insistence that “khug” is a Hebrew word, when all evidence points to the contrary.”

Where? I have it form a real lexicon. I’m good.

“I feel sorry for you, to be honest.”

LOL, do you? That is sweet. Thanks for caring. I seem to be doing pretty well, really. Thanks though. Maybe if you spent your time thinking rather than be concerned about other bloggers, you own common sense would kick-in.

on 27 Feb 2011 at 9:50 pm 78.MrQ said …

Hor,
Post #24 and 73. When you’re ready, of course. Sorry for making you think…or will you just pull out the magic wand?

@71 David,
Your understanding of genetics is incorrect. (Based on new data I am not incorrect)

1) One thing which is setting my teeth on edge is your usage of the word “specie” – this is not a word. Seriously. It is “species”.
Whatever, late night bad spelling, so I am not taking about coins but any particular “species” of animal

2) There is no such thing as an organism without genetic mutations.

(I never denied this)

There is no such thing as your definition of a “clean” animal. It simply does not exist.

(In current scientific nomenclature you are correct. However, I am drawing a parallel interpretation by and between a very old text and modern science. Clean meaning void of genetic defects. I know this does not fit within your model. Notwithstanding, a great many ancient philosophical & historic texts although they can be classified as correct do not cross translate well with current views of how something does or did do somthing)

the majority of mutations are benign, some are deleterious.

(This is correct although not all mutations can simply be classified as deleterious meaning in some way harmful or benign. The genes themselves are not in control since they can not self activate they are subject to input from the containing cells membrane receptors and effectors )

Every single creature upon this planet right now and all the way back through history, had at any specific time, several genetic defects within them

(Going back as far as we have tangible samples to test this can be said to be true. However, this view is nothing more than a speculative probability. Unless of course you have a time machine there is no way to conclusively rule such an opinion as fact.)

3) “Spontaneous adaptation” is not the “accepted theory”. The two currently accepted drivers of evolution are natural selection and genetic drift.

(Yes these are the well entrenched old school dogmatic views that so many scholars are afraid to walk away from for fear their peer’s will reject them)

Spontaneous adaptation has been proposed, but it is still yet to be generally accepted.

(The concept is decades old but gaining ground) More data needed (refer back to my comment #36 regarding data).

4) What your entomologist (or did you mean ornithologists?) friends are noticing is genetic drift across a population, not spontaneous adaptation.

(The bird link was regarding Darwin’s finches. The entomologist comment was regarding how bugs can rapidly evolve not exclusively over the long haul but also within just a couple of generations)

Any particular reason why you switched from birds to insects there?

(I did not switch to anything I was merely pointing out that any “species” notwithstanding “genetic drift” can spontaneously adapt to overcome an environmental crisis, without this mechanism we would have never even existed. Spontaneous adaptation is logical. Darwinism has many factual components but as a whole is a presumptively unreasonable mechanism of how life functions and adapts)

5) Glad to see you reject the biblical flood. Refreshing. If you’re talking about Founder Effects (Google it) (I am already aware of this), you need to understand the impact they have on a population, and the evolutionary outcomes that flow on from those events.

(Just to be clear I classify my self as a “creative evolutionist”)

on 28 Feb 2011 at 12:02 am 81.Horatiio said …

TGHO

I’m sorry, did mom come and grab you for dinner? (BTW I think you meant at #75) lol!

So, again: I’ll make it easy.

“But if you can show met evidence of how nano-machines, DNA and consciousness evolved without need for intelligence guiding the process I would be more than willing to reconsider. But please, stick with the scientific method.”

If you can pull this off, I will recant theism right here on WWGHA. I’ll even post the scoreboard for you on my website.

David,

I have attended a a lecture of Lipton’s at Penn St years ago.

on 28 Feb 2011 at 12:03 am 82.Observer said …

David- When I said the likes of you and Hor are dangerous to my country, it was not to imply that you are powerful; it was more akin to degeneracy. You are the people that shit near the public water supply and cause problems for the clean and civilized.

It is interesting that you pick up on epigenitics, and not surprising. More degrees of freedom, feedback, and low and behold, dynamical systems. While the investigations into the field are relatively new, this should be the nail in the coffin for the Creation “Science” crowd. It is even a stronger case for chemical self-organization ( read Prigogine ). Instead, you are picking up on the point there are ways to explain life and evolution aside from current theory and looking to that as refutation of Darwin and opening the door for magic. Your comments on membranes, cells, and gene activation indicate that your understanding of genetics is not quite at the comprehension level one would need to understand the captions and diagrams in Ch1 of a freshman bio text.

on 28 Feb 2011 at 12:26 am 83.David said …

80.Observer
You certainly have a lot of repressed anger. The use of so many colorful metaphors in support of your negatively biased prejudice most certainly will lead to adverse effects on your health. When’s the last time you took a vacation?

@79
Glad you could attend one of Bruce’s lectures. I really enjoy his enthusiasm for his work. He’s a great guy :-)

on 28 Feb 2011 at 12:44 am 84.David said …

80.Observer said
“David- When I said the likes of you and Hor are dangerous to my country,”

I was under the impression that this was “OUR CONTRY” Am I being led to believe that you consider yourself the can do no wrong master over all of us?

There have always been points of view that are outside the normally accepted paradigm. How do you think the USA came into being. Contrary points of view are critical in the progression of science.

on 28 Feb 2011 at 12:52 am 85.David said …

@80

I am not a member of the “Creation Science” club.

Magic is fun, but i am frankly a lot more interested in the truth.

“Your comments on membranes, cells, and gene activation indicate that your understanding of genetics is not quite at the comprehension level one would need to understand the captions and diagrams in Ch1 of a freshman bio text.”

I don’t know where you are coming from but you just insulted several prominent geneticists.

on 28 Feb 2011 at 1:20 am 86.Horatiio said …

David,

I did enjoy him.

What Buster and his lackeys attempt to do is promote themselves as mainstream. Of course they are not therefore they need to prove the challenge I gave to TGHO @ #79. They won’t but it is fun to offer.

To quote Francis Crick “We must remind ourselves that creation only looks designed”. LOL, isn’t that great! I wonder if he ever considered there is a reason for this???

on 28 Feb 2011 at 5:15 am 87.David said …

84.Horatiio said …
David,
I did enjoy him.
What Buster and his lackeys attempt to do is promote themselves as mainstream. Of course they are not therefore they need to prove the challenge I gave to TGHO @ #79. They won’t but it is fun to offer.
To quote Francis Crick “We must remind ourselves that creation only looks designed”. LOL, isn’t that great! I wonder if he ever considered there is a reason for this???

The largest problem we face is prejudice. Racial, Religious and even scientific. Everyone is pointing the finger at everyone else saying they are bad. I can’t really blame people for their stubborn negative views of all things related to what is perceived as GOD. Because in many ways they are right. So many evil adulterations have been professed as the truth with the only intent of justifying the enslavement, & murder of countless innocents. You have to honesty say why would any intellectual individual take a conversation about the supernatural as anything but the rantings of the insane.

So many people have been burnt, misled, and forced to accept something as they grew up as fact when they knew in their spirit the whole time that something was terribly wrong.

So now when someone who says hi I am a Christian to someone like TGHO or Observer they immediately segue in varying degrees to a defensive posture just as parent would do with a disobedient child.

Nothing the “Christian” says is considered of any value. They are often intelligent and well educated standing on good science. However, they usually do not practice it themselves in their day to day activities, such as in what they say to Christians.

They quote authentic theories like stellar nucleosynthesis with all confidence that all Christians are of limited intelligence and therefore incapable of understanding what hydrogen, helium or nuclear fusion is or how it can all interact. In their haste to flick buggers on Christianity’s windshield they fail to realize important details such as one of the primary architects of that theory was Sir Fred Hoye, who you may remember is the same guy who also made this infamous quote below regarding evolution.

A junkyard contains all the bits and pieces of a Boeing-747, dismembered and in disarray. A whirlwind happens to blow through the yard. What is the chance that after its passage a fully assembled 747, ready to fly, will be found standing there? (2).

and

“Life as we know it is, among other things, dependent on at least 2000 different enzymes. How could the blind forces of the primal sea manage to put together the correct chemical elements to build enzymes?” “The Intelligent Universe” (1983)

Christians on the other hand (bless their hearts for trying) with all their best intentions can be very embarrassing in their understanding of Biblical facts and often resort to comments that turn God into a paradoxical idiot within the eyes of the science minded person.

Ignorant misinterpretations of Hebrew text such as the universe, the world and everything in and on it was made in 6 days spins off into ridiculous debates about the actual age of the earth, dinosaurs missing a ride on an ark, bizarre crustal displacement ideas, fountains of water coming from beneath the ground to cover the dry land with oceans and dozens of other completely non Biblical fantasies. God puts the fruit on the trees and makes the rain fall la la la la la the Bible tells me so, how embarrassing. People God is not stupid and as such would not build something that would require maintenance. Get a clue.

In my opinion the whole human population is completely out of whack.

Intellectuals are usually spiritually bankrupt empty shells incapable of connecting with their inner self and subsequently, the world and the cosmos as well. They just see things as an equation to be solved, a set of rules and stipulations devoid of any true deeper meaning.

Spiritual people have incredible difficulty staying grounded in reality. Forever looking to God for forgiveness without understanding that they are trapped in a self centered loop of irresponsibility. Oblivious of the deeper meanings & intents of the Word they hold dear.

If people could only fathom that both extremes the spiritual and the intellectual need to be joined together to form a complete human, then maybe, just maybe we would have a chance at survival as a “species” but this is not likely to happen. We have to be right all the time, have to maintain the status que. Forbid anyone from seeing us for the frail insecure creatures that we are.

on 28 Feb 2011 at 5:40 am 88.TGHO said …

@79 David,

“Clean meaning void of genetic defects” is void in *any* model, not just those which are generally accepted. There is no need to get a time machine and go back to sample DNA from animals which existed thousands of years ago – the modality of genetics doesn’t change over time. Our understanding may change (c.f. the improvements in knowledge between Mendel and now), but the underlying functionality itself doesn’t change.

Bruce Lipton…? SERIOUSLY?!? Bruce LIPTON?!?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA!!!!

Pardon me whilst I try to stop laughing. Oh man, you really need to change your sources. Lipton is a crackpot. He thinks that if you, as an individual, concentrate hard enough you can change your own DNA. He hasn’t produced any actual science since 1982, after then he went loopy. I’ve read his book, and many of his papers. There’s no science there, just mythology.

Your comments around “spontaneous adapt” basically shows genetic drift in action. To support spontaneous adaptation as a possibility, you’d first have to fix the allele frequency within a population, and then put that population through a environmental shock. In the work I’ve seen in this area, the results so far are still debatable. And in fact, no one has done any work in this area for a very long time – the early 90’s was when I last read any papers to do with this, and this work was in viruses, not eukaryotes.

I have to agree with Observer here. If you were in any of my undergraduate classes, and presented work such as this, I would have to fail you. Frankly, your understanding of biology, cytology and genetics is poorer than a lot of fresh first years I teach.

on 28 Feb 2011 at 6:21 am 91.Severin said …

70 David
“It is ludicrous to assume that anyone could load everything required to sustain two of every creature on the planet for 144 straight days within a barge even if it was as large as an aircraft carrier. Especially if there were 14 of each clean specie as the text indicates.”

Then:
” This is not to say the biblical text is wrong.”
And:
„However, I believe the perspective of the people who lived thousands of years ago molded the story to reflect something more within the realm of their limited understanding.“

What you claim here is:
– Big flood, as described in the Bible, could not occur, the biblical text is wrong, it is, in fact, a lie
– People wrote the Bible, not god

BUT, the Bible is the very book, and the ONLY book Christianity is based on. It was declared as god’s word and absolute truth.

How can we trust a book containing one single lie?

How can we trust a book written by people who lived thousand years ago?

If Bible is a collection of bullshits written by bronze age people, as you clearly (and honestly) claim, Christianity is religion based on bullshits, because there is NOTHING ELSE to support Christianity.

on 28 Feb 2011 at 6:32 am 92.Severin said …

72 Horatio
“In order for evolution to be true, God must exist.”
Because you say so?
Or, is there some other arguments to support your claim?

“Mathematics, philosophy and common sense dictate this reality.”
To see how a common sense works, please see my post #62.
Then you will not jump into your own mouth by claiming:
a) “There is no puff the magic universe.”
b) God created (poofed!) universe (from nothing!)

Don’t you see contradiction?
No, I don’t expect you do!

on 28 Feb 2011 at 12:19 pm 93.Horatiio said …

TGHO

Yeah, you are a professor as much as Severin is a Christian. No professor (LOL!) would use a wiki link. Second, where is the PROOF that nano-machines evolved’ Lets try again:

“But if you can show met evidence of how nano-machines, DNA and consciousness evolved without need for intelligence guiding the process I would be more than willing to reconsider. But please, stick with the scientific method.”

There must be a smoking gun right? C’mon show up this silly ol’ Theist.

on 28 Feb 2011 at 9:03 pm 94.Severin said …

Hratio
“But if you can show me evidence of how nano-machines, DNA and consciousness evolved without need for intelligence guiding the process I would be more than willing to reconsider..”

WHAT intelligence guiding?

An intelligent creator who creates universe and mankind, should know SOMETHING about his own creations.
For example:
Your creator had no idea that inbreeding leads to destruction of species, but ordered A+E, as one and only pair of humans,to multily and spread the earth. He practically ordered A+E sons to fuck A+E daughters to provide successors.

Some idiot, your „creator“!

But you DON’T believe he exists!
You DON’T believe he „puffed“ the earth!

His entire argument has been and continues to be whack. If he had any real evidence, his case would be presented worldwide.

I continue to ask:

“But if you can show met evidence of how nano-machines, DNA and consciousness evolved without need for intelligence guiding the process I would be more than willing to reconsider. But please, stick with the scientific method.”

If you cannot answer this question, you must consider an intelligent creator, unless you are a Francis Crick proponent.

on 28 Feb 2011 at 11:49 pm 96.MrQ said …

Hor,
Where and/or when does life begin on our 4.5 billion year old Earth? Do you suppose man was created by magic 4 billion years ago? 3 billion? 1 billion? What say you…

Why did your god make our planet after waiting about 10 billion years after the universe began unfolding? And how did that lead you to Jayzus? Oh yeah, the 12 step program…my bad.

If you don’t have the logical answer, there’s nothing wrong with saying “I don’t know….yet”. But you’ll just pull out and wave your magic wand…poof, god willed it, it is so. Won’t you?

on 01 Mar 2011 at 12:21 am 97.a said …

Ah yes, Francis Crick. The scientist who proposed alien seeding. I wonder how alien seeds are a possibility but God is not? Well, putting off the question is easier than dealing with the problem.

on 01 Mar 2011 at 6:41 am 98.Severin said …

95 a

Alien seeding does not exclude problem of god.
I personally do not believe life came from space, to our planet, although it is not impossible.

That life HAD to start and develop SOMEWHERE.

“Somewhere there” the same dilema begins: did god create life, or it started spontaniously?

As I can see, we could have primitive life very close to earth.

on 01 Mar 2011 at 7:59 am 99.TGHO said …

@91 Horatiio,

A professor who isn’t getting paid to educate your lazy arse certainly would use Wiki.

Did you read the entry? Did you actually understand any of it? Or did you just sit there going “nyah nyah nyah I can’t hear you!” with your fingers in your ears (figuratively speaking)?

I’m happy to discuss any specific points or questions you have. But your spurious “challenge” (LOLZ) has been answered dozens of times, both here and elsewhere.

on 01 Mar 2011 at 8:01 am 100.TGHO said …

@94 Horatiio,

Not sure who you are referencing here, but I just want to raise one point.

Even if the current driving mechanisms of evolution were shown to not be the actual underlying processes, that does not automatically support an intelligent agent. On the contrary, an intelligent agent ADDS complexity, where it is clear that nature seeks simplicity.

That’s year 9 biology mate.

on 01 Mar 2011 at 11:43 am 101.Horatiio said …

“an intelligent agent ADDS complexity, where it is clear that nature seeks simplicity.”

You disappoint me. This statement is essentially calling “uncle”. You can stop with your professor disguise. We all know better.

The cell and nano-machines are amazingly complex. Now if you can show me using the scientific method how it came about through natural selection, from non-living matter without the aid of a creator. I will immediately begin to call your professor.

Occams Razor is not your escape hatch. Everything of any complexity has a creator (cars, planes, computers). You on the other hand are attempting to postulate just the opposite.

Oh, lest I forget. I have a son, a freshmen, taking biology at UNC-Chapel Hill. The professor is a theist…

on 01 Mar 2011 at 8:59 pm 102.Lou said …

“Oh, lest I forget. I have a son, a freshmen [sic], taking biology at UNC-Chapel Hill. The professor is a theist…”

100% irrelevant to the discussion, or to anything other than you and your son.

Who created the flowers in my garden when before there was only soil, water, and seed? Did some super natural being make them? If it did, then why didn’t they just appear fully grown rather than sprout and grow from the soil?

on 01 Mar 2011 at 9:14 pm 103.Boz said …

Occams Razor is just a crutch for the atheist crowd. Its like saying cells are not as complex as they look because nature says all explanations must be simple. Such stupidity.

God is relevant, needed and necessary because the natural cannot produce complexity in itself, only chaos.

on 01 Mar 2011 at 10:16 pm 104.Lou said …

“Occams Razor is just a crutch for the atheist crowd.”

Such a statement is utterly false. You invented that idea only in order to dispute it in order to further your disjointed arguments. No atheist relies upon or even considers Occams Razor when deciding to disbelieve in a supernatural supreme being or to support that decision.

“God is relevant, needed and necessary because the natural cannot produce complexity in itself, only chaos.”

Another invention of fact. Even IF it was true, then “God” is no longer any of those things because he already created all the natural processes that govern the universe.

on 02 Mar 2011 at 7:09 am 105.Severin said …

99 Horatio
“Everything of any complexity has a creator (cars, planes, computers).“

Except god?
What is wrong with god?
a) He is not complex enough to have a creator (in which case he wasn’t able to create anything)
b) He is very complex, thus, according to YOU, he has a creator of himself

Who/what created the creator?
Then, who/what created creator’s creator?
Etc.

Your own brain is fighting such idiotic ideas, we can see it, for example, from your claim about “puffed universe”.
You claim universe was “puffed” (by god), then, in the next line, your brain says “puffing” is impossible!

Solution?
Simple: matter/energy is eternal, it was not created, it just exists and changes according to its own built in “intelligence” (natural laws).
Life is the result of THAT “intelligence”.

No “puffs” necessary!
No stupid gods, who order inbreeding and think that species can be renewed from one single pair.

on 02 Mar 2011 at 7:46 am 106.TGHO said …

@100 Horatiio,

Wow, that’s BRILLIANT! I’m incredibly impressed!

Let me grab my two laptops and get them breeding straight away! Can’t wait to prove this god-thing of yours exists when my two laptops produce baby laptops.

Okay, I’ve dimmed the lights and put on some Barry White. The two laptops are alone, I’ve got a camera set up. Just need to wait for the magic to start…

(Several hours later) Huh, nothing happening. Hrm. Maybe if I try with my wife’s car and my car? Or if I head down to the airport I live just near to, maybe I can borrow a couple of planes.

Sooooo, let’s get back to reality here. What did we learn from this little demonstration? Anyone want to attempt to answer the question? Yes, you there in the back. Yes, that’s right! Machines don’t breed. Y’know, the term “nano-machines” should have tipped me off. That’s from Behe. And it’s fallacy – whilst organelles within a cell may look machine-like, they are actually – wait for it – not machines! GASP! Wow! How about that, children?!? Isn’t it amazing!

It’s very simple Horatiio. When a male creature and a female creature love each other very much, they may actually produce babies. Those babies contain half the genome from their dad, and half from their mum – selected randomly. Can you say “randomly”? I know it’s a big, complex word, but it’s an important concept here. And then we get into allele frequencies, population genetics, yadda, yadda, yadda. Wow, it’s so complex! So hard to understand! Crumbs and begorrah!

Horatiio, I’ve upheld my side of the bargin. I’ve given you a link to a reasonable overview of evolution and how the process works, without any requirement for an intelligent overseer. If you can’t understand it, or just want to block it from your mind and remain ignorant, that’s fine by me. It’s unfortunate that you’re so limited that you don’t want to expand your mind, but I suppose that’s your perogative. I’m just going to declare victory here and move on.

So, challenge for you then. Give me some actual, historic and geological data proving that the biblical flood occured. And the bible is not a historical source. Or, if that’s too hard, please prove that Allah is not the one true god. Thanks!

on 02 Mar 2011 at 7:55 am 107.TGHO said …

@102 Boz

“the natural cannot produce complexity in itself, only chaos”

– fail high school physics did we?

on 02 Mar 2011 at 12:13 pm 108.Horatiio said …

TGHO

I see we are going to fast. Let me slow down for you.

“But if you can show met evidence of how nano-machines,
DNA and consciousness evolved
without need for intelligence guiding the process

I would be more than willing to reconsider.

But please, stick with the scientific method.”

If you can pull this off,
I will recant theism right here on WWGHA.

If you can’t. I promise to ridicule you. We will just let it go. Now, I am assuming you know what the scientific method is, correct?

on 02 Mar 2011 at 7:07 pm 109.MrQ said …

hor,
Follow the evidence Horatiio/Horatio. Visit the site of a fellow theist who knows, the theist you ask folks to follow, the theist named Francis Collins. His life changing information is available at biologos.org where he claims, and I quote:

Simply put, the term evolution means a change over time. For example, one might say that laptop computers have evolved over the past decade. But when biologists use the term, they refer to the entire history of life on Earth.

Use the power hor, use the power. Knowledge is good, don’t be afraid. Now you can start recanting, with your next entry here. Thank me later.

PS: Are horatiio and horatio related?

on 02 Mar 2011 at 7:48 pm 110.TGHO said …

@107 Horatiio,

Do try to keep up Horatiio, you’ve already conceded that argument. Refer back to the Wiki link I posted on evolution if you’ve forgotten.

I see by your lack of a reply that you also concede the argument around the biblica flood and the dominion of Allah.

on 02 Mar 2011 at 9:04 pm 111.Horatiio said …

Mr. Q,

LOL, so you are conceding that evolution is not possible without intelligence guiding the process? Since you quote Collins, you too believe God guided evolution? I think we are making process…..

TGHO

No digression TGHO. A favorite track of atheist. Do you agree with myself and Mr Q that evolution is not possible without intelligence (God) guiding the process? We have Collins, Mr Q all we need is your yes to close this chapter.

on 02 Mar 2011 at 9:14 pm 112.TGHO said …

@109 Horatiio,

Eh? Are you still fibbulating along? Cripes mate, it’s done. You lost. I posted arguments, you’re just sitting there with your fingers in your ears going “I’m right, I’m right! I ignore you, I’m right.” About what I would expect from someone like yourself.

So, at the end of the game:

TGHO 7 Horatiio 0

Thank you linespeople, thank you ball boys.

on 02 Mar 2011 at 9:22 pm 113.MrQ said …

Hor,
Yes. I am impressed. Hey everyone, Hor has accepted the Theory of Evolution. Wow. And I thought we would never get there. Just keep going, more research, hor, MORE RESEARCH. Next you may want to the look into Ken Miller’s (a Catholic)website: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/
Cripes, there’s hope for you yet, Hor.

on 02 Mar 2011 at 9:46 pm 114.Mitch said …

Hor,
In all sincerity, did you really expect to get a real response to your challenge from Moe & Larry? A wiki article is about the best I would anticipate. There is a raison d’être atheist represent such a small segment of the populace. I have researched this to some degree. They suffer from a derangement that will not allow them to acknowledge that implausible multifarious systems of design cannot arise from the rubble of chaos.

They wave the magic wand of natural selection, time even alien visitation but God can never be acknowledged as a prospect providing the information, the décor, the creativity to the canvas. I find typically, they are livid and of course loathe all religion (the derangement) and therefore they find themselves unable to reflect clearly.
A cure is available but difficult as I have seen it take place first hand. One must be willing to concede the derangement.

on 02 Mar 2011 at 11:08 pm 115.MrQ said …

Mitch

God can never be acknowledged as a prospect providing the information

And you know god did it because you have what proof exactly? The bible? The koran? I can accept god as the cause, just show me what you’ve got. If you don’t have anything, it’s OK to say so.

Hey Mitch, Notice how Hor dodges the tough questions? He readily acknowledges a 4.5 billion year old Earth but fails miserably to answer my questions from posts #24/38/73. Why don’t you give them a go?

on 03 Mar 2011 at 3:21 am 116.Horatiio said …

“In all sincerity, did you really expect to get a real response to your challenge from Moe & Larry?”

No, since I already knew that the challenge given to TGHO was impossible. Ironically, he hasn’t caught on to that. Check out his wiki link. He actually believes that fulfills the requirement. Not only that, he claims to be a professor!

Maybe we can prompt him to give us a link to his website.

on 03 Mar 2011 at 4:47 am 117.God was an alien said …

Has anyone here actually considered that God or anything related to Gods were actually humans misinterpreting when aliens visited and they thought they were gods?

on 03 Mar 2011 at 9:14 am 118.Severin said …

112 Mitch
“They wave the magic wand of natural selection,…“

Just imagine!
A superstitious individual, waving the magic wand of creationism (god did it, we don’t know how, when and why, but he did it! HE puffed universe from nothing, using his magic – what? – wand, word, thought, finger…dirt…), accuses atheists for „waving magic wand“!!!

WHO is irrational here?

on 03 Mar 2011 at 10:35 am 119.TGHO said …

@114 Horatiio,

Impossible? LOLZ. Once again you prove that you lack basic reading and comprehension skills. As outlined at the Wiki link I gave you, the processes of evolution do not require, in any way, shape or form, a guiding intelligence.

Hey, I got an idea. How about you present any evidence you have supporting your claim that some sort of intelligence is required.

Huh, let’s see if you can actually make an ARGUMENT here. Considering you already forfeited three.

on 03 Mar 2011 at 10:37 am 120.TGHO said …

@113 Mitch,

Researched what exactly? Sweeping generalisations and misrepresentations? One only needs to go to church for that.

on 03 Mar 2011 at 5:59 pm 121.Horatiio said …

TGHO

As a professor, could you link me to your website.

Do you agree with myself and Mr Q that evolution is not possible without intelligence (God) guiding the process? Q has already quoted Collins, a theistic evolutionist. So, we have Collins, Mr Q all we need is your yes. What say you?

on 03 Mar 2011 at 7:49 pm 122.TGHO said …

@120 Horatiio,

Oh look, I can copy-paste too!

How about you present any evidence you have supporting your claim that some sort of intelligence is required.

You’re sounding like a broken record mate. The processes of evolution do not require a guiding intelligence. And I don’t think Mr Q agrees with you on that either.

on 03 Mar 2011 at 8:09 pm 123.MrQ said …

Hor,
I ask: Are you now an advocate for the Theory of Evolution, like Collins? If so, I congratulate you on your first step of recovery. Now all you need to do is abandon Jayzus, hope for an afterlife, and belief in a global flood….like that other scientist which you occasionally mention, Flew.

on 03 Mar 2011 at 8:32 pm 124.Horatiio said …

I’m sorry TGHO, but Mr Q is clearly following Collins here. Do you agree with Collins TGHO?

No post to your website mate? Embarrassed or admitting your lie?

I take it you admit you have flunked the test. I am a fair chap. I desire to be fair to you. You couldn’t possibly meet the challenge so I will let you off the hook if you like.

on 03 Mar 2011 at 8:43 pm 125.MrQ said …

TGHO,
Hor is a complete fool. He asks people to go to sites such as biologos.org but fails to read and understand the information contained there.

Hor, from post #119, claims:

that evolution is not possible without intelligence (God) guiding the process?

But a quote from Biologos:

BioLogos states that “once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity,” and “humans are part of this process.” Moreover, “once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required

Anyway, it’s a nice baby step for Hor to take now that he agrees with Biologos and the Theory of Evolution. He took 12 giant steps to find Jayzus, now he will occasionally stumble as he backtracks to reality.

on 03 Mar 2011 at 8:46 pm 126.MrQ said …

Hor.
Ooops…you were saying?

on 03 Mar 2011 at 9:05 pm 127.TGHO said …

@123 Horatiio,

Hrm, no, can’t say I do agree with Collins – if Collins actually did come out and claim that evolution required a guiding intelligence. Do you have a link to such a quote?

On the contrary, sir, you are the one who has flunked. Let me list your failures:

1) refused to read (or failed to comprehend) the basics of evolution as outlined at Wiki,

2) Unable (due to lack of understanding?) to articulate any problems/issues/questions around evolution satisfactorily,

3) Insisted on using a previously disproven nomenclature (“nano-machines”) from a disreputable hack (Behe),

4) Refused to provide any arguments or evidence to back up your ridiculous claims around a guiding intelligence,

5) Forfeited the discussion around the biblical flood,

6) Forfeited the discussion around the supremacy of Allah.

Your overall mark is an F. Please re-enroll to take the course again!

on 03 Mar 2011 at 9:06 pm 128.TGHO said …

@124 Mr Q,

Oh, I don’t expect anything from Horatiio to be honest. It’s obvious that even the most basic understanding of science is completely out of his grasp. It’s sad, really.

on 03 Mar 2011 at 10:30 pm 129.Horatiio said …

LOL, Behe is a hack, a real professor, not a pretend professor on WWGHA. Hooo!, I am still laughing, Professor TOJO can you link me to your website and any books published. Of course, Dawkins called Collins essentially a hack so I shouldn’t be surprised.

Well, it is obvious you have no basis to show how evolution is atheistic rather than theistic. When you get something, post it on you website.

Hor,
How refreshing that you now accept that evolution does not require the invisible guiding hand of god.

You now agree with TGHO, MrQ, and Biologos founder Francis Collins. . It’s mission accomplished, we are all on the same page!!!

Congratulations, Hor. You are an old dog that is capable of learning new tricks.

on 04 Mar 2011 at 1:25 am 132.Mitch said …

There are literally hundreds of arguments for the existence of a creator God. Much like the all the corroboration for black holes, all evidence is indirect and must be interpreted. One could look at all the evidence for a black hole and conclude it does not exist. One could willingly conclude the data only appears to be a black hole but claim in reality it does not in veracity exist. Richard Dawkins actually does make this argument regarding creation. He rationalizes that it does indeed appear designed but we must remember it was not. The paradox is quite droll. He never proceeds to build an argument to support this proposition.

Black holes do not draw upon the emotion as does God. Dawkins is rather hostile towards religion thus his palpable predisposition. Therein we find the real problem. It is only a theme if one is willing to connect the dots and come to a logical conclusion.

If you look through the posts, TGHO concedes the existence of a God as he promptly digresses to Christianity doctrines. Typically this is the ploy of one who has conceded to the point, in this case God.

on 04 Mar 2011 at 2:07 am 133.MrQ said …

Mitch:

There are literally hundreds of arguments for the existence of a creator God

(and also for a little pink unicorn?)

Briefly tell me the three best arguments, for god that is and not little pink unicorns.

There certainly aren’t any arguments for a god that guides the process of evolution. Or maybe you have one? Hor accepts Francis Collins view that evolution just happens in and of itself, no supernatural force required.

on 04 Mar 2011 at 3:56 pm 134.Horatiio said …

Isee,

Frankly, none of that is a surprise. It was quite obvious he is not a professor lol.

When you must lie regarding your credentials, its just shows you have no faith in your self or your own message.

Mitch,

Atheist think they follow science and theist reject science. They still have not figured out both sides use the same evidence. Interpretation is the only variable. Black holes are a great analogy.

on 04 Mar 2011 at 4:06 pm 135.MrQ said …

Hor

They still have not figured out both sides use the same evidence. Interpretation is the only variable.

Glad you were able to use the evidence and reject the utter stupidity of suggesting that a god guides evolution. Isn’t it wonderful? You’ve learned something.

Debating with you, Hor, makes me feel as though I am in an ass kicking contest against a one legged man.

on 04 Mar 2011 at 9:20 pm 136.TGHO said …

@132 Isee,

Read the forums do we? All of that information is here on the WWGHA forums, so it’s not that hard to pull out. Let me link to my introductory post here:

Note that you forgot to actually list *all* of my qualifications:
“I’ve got a science degree, majoring in Genetics & Biochemistry, I’ve worked as a scientist and have actually done science. Nothing published though, as I gave it up for IT, which I enjoyed more. I’ve also got a MSE (Masters of Software Engineering), and am currently working on an MBA.”

So back in the early 90’s I was working as a geneticist, in a lab, at a university. And lecturing. And running classes. And teaching genetics, cytology and introductory biology.

“His favorite pastime over the last several years has been bashing anyone who does not agree with his evolution ideology.”

This is incorrect. It’s been my favourite pasttime since 1978. :) Furthermore evolution is not an ideology, it’s science.

on 04 Mar 2011 at 9:33 pm 137.TGHO said …

@128 Horatiio,

Yes, Behe is a hack. His concept of “irreducable complexity” has been shown to be wrong literally every time he brings it up. His concept of “nano-machines” is him seeing machinery where none actually exists. As I noted before, constructed machines are not the same as biological systems.

Can you supply any evidence to support your (ludicrous) assumption that evolution is theistic?

on 04 Mar 2011 at 9:36 pm 138.TGHO said …

@129 Horatiio,

*facepalm*

As previously noted, machines cannot reproduce. They are not biological entities.

Seriously dude. This is high school science. Do you remember the definition of an organism?

on 04 Mar 2011 at 9:38 pm 139.TGHO said …

@131 Mitch,

What are you spouting? How do I “concedes the existence of a God”?

on 04 Mar 2011 at 9:51 pm 140.TGHO said …

@134 Horatiio,

Unfortunately for you, Isee was the one misrepresenting my qualifications. Too bad, so sad, you lose.

“Atheist think they follow science and theist reject science”
This is simple fact. Theists have to reject a large portion of science to actually *be theists*.

on 05 Mar 2011 at 6:24 am 141.Anonymous said …

130 Mitch
“One could look at all the evidence for a black hole and conclude it does not exist. One could willingly conclude the data only appears to be a black hole but claim in reality it does not in veracity exist.“

Yes, every single idiot could do that: neglect evidences, and continue believing in idiocies.
Unfortunately, idiots are doing it all the time!

Non-idiots don’t do such things. They never neglect evidences, but search for new ones, to fight their own scepticism.
For non-idiots, if something looks like a duck, walks like a duck and make voices like a duck, they will say: it is PROBABLY a duck, and will keep searching for more evidences, but will not say: it is NOT a duck, before they study more evidences.

Can you kindly give us one or two evidences about existance of god?
I mean, YOU said:
„There are literally hundreds of arguments for the existence of a creator God.“
I don’t need hundreds, only a few.

Enlighten us!

on 05 Mar 2011 at 6:34 am 142.Severin said …

Post #140 is mine (Severin)

on 05 Mar 2011 at 7:24 pm 143.God was an alien said …

The God(s) written in history were actually aliens visiting us and mankind misinterpreted them to be God(s). How do you think the pyramids and other unexplained structures were built?

on 05 Mar 2011 at 9:25 pm 144.Observer said …

#142 It is a great idea. How the pyramids were built is unlikely to be known, but there are several plausible explanations around. None of them were though were without human labor.

on 05 Mar 2011 at 9:45 pm 145.TGHO said …

@142 God was an alien,

How’s the tin foil hat fitting these days? Erich von Däniken was a crackpot when he suggested those theories back in the ’70 – time has not made them any more likely.

on 06 Mar 2011 at 12:49 am 146.God was an alien said …

143 and 144,

I am sure human labor was involved, but may have been helped with alien technology. And I am not only talking about the pyramids. There are many structures out there that aren’t easy to build even with today’s technology.

No need for a tin foil hat, TGHO. I am an atheist just like you guys. I am just saying that there are three explanations out there. Real Gods (which I don’t believe), no Gods, and aliens thought to be Gods, where the latter two are the two best explanations, rather than actual Gods. I am not saying there actually were or are aliens, I am just saying it is something that could have been the case. A lot better explanation than there actually being Gods with supernatural powers.

And who considered Erich a crackpot? Believers of God who thought he has to be wrong?

on 06 Mar 2011 at 6:24 am 147.Isee said …

TGHO says that respected epigenesist DR Bruce Lipton is a joke who has not published a paper since the early 80’s even though Bruce has written several books since that time.

TGHO claims that he himself is this great man of science with several degrees but then follows this up by saying he never published any papers for no other reason than he found his calling in computer science.

“And who considered Erich a crackpot? Believers of God who thought he has to be wrong?”

Scientists.

on 06 Mar 2011 at 8:01 pm 149.TGHO said …

@145 God was an alien,

If you are an atheist, then apply logic and reason to the question, not blind stupidity. Do some actual research around the question before formulating your understanding.

Firstly, there are no “structures out there that aren’t easy to build even with today’s technology”. There are some structures we’re not 100% sure how the people of the time build them with the technology available to them, but we right now can certainly reproduce anything the ancient world built, and we can go a lot better.

Secondly, apply some logic here. If aliens existed (and that is a huge if), and if they traveled to Earth (another mighty if), why the hell would they build some primitive rock structures? Damn, if I was the alien commander, I’d be telling my crew to whip up some diamond nanotube walls, and block the Mediterranean completely off. Build me a space elevator. Pave Europe in carbonfibre bullet trains. And why are they still not here? How come the human race wasn’t a) wiped out, or b) enslaved? Do you seriously think that aliens would come all this way, slap together a couple of rock pimples, and then head off? How bloody dumb is that!

Thirdly, the best explanation *is* that humans built it ourselves. No need for aliens, and certainly no need for gods.

Erich von Däniken was disproven by scientists basically showing the gaps in his work. Not by believers – where do you think the Raelians came from?

on 07 Mar 2011 at 12:21 am 150.MrQ said …

@145, God was an alien
Wow.
It takes all kinds to make the world go around. Thanks for adding colour to the mosaic.
Hey, maybe those aliens are still around, controlling us from the mother-ship with their undetectable gamma-omega-beta neutrino based brain scanning waves. Ever think of that?

on 07 Mar 2011 at 2:43 am 151.A said …

Atheist believe some of the strangest things.

on 07 Mar 2011 at 3:46 am 152.MrQ said …

A, (#149) chimed in with:

Atheist believe some of the strangest things.

Are you trying to burst “God was an alien’s” bubble? He seems so happy with his alien belief, just like those who subscribe to the notion of invisible caring benevolant ethereal entities which were created in the image of men.

on 07 Mar 2011 at 8:12 am 153.TGHO said …

@149 A,

Theists have got us beat hands down when it comes to believing in strange things.

on 08 Mar 2011 at 6:10 am 154.Severin said …

149 A
“Atheist believe some of the strangest things.”

Maybe, but things atheists believe are POSSIBLE.
If life exists on earth, it is obviously possible it exists on many other of billions planets.
If we, eith our modest technology visited moon and sent our machines to many planets and satelites within our solar systems (and only 100 years ago there were no airplanes on earth), it is POSSIBLE that another civilisation, much older than ours, have means for interstellar trip, and visited earth.
It is not likely, but it is POSSIBLE.

Now turn to yourself and see what YOU believe!
“Puffed” earth! Man made from mud!

on 11 Mar 2011 at 9:00 am 155.TGHO said …

Looks like the theists have quit the field, conceding the debate. Chalk up another win for the good guys! :)

on 06 Jul 2011 at 4:03 pm 156.choiswords said …

Maybe I’m a little late here. But, I must point out the one and only certain ‘fact’ in regards to these postings. Most all of you represent what is wrong with the world and what hinders man’s forward progression. I have read through nearly all of this thread. It is man’s innate nature to ‘take a side’. And in turn we argue. Yet, in this case, those of you that essentially agree on one particular side still argue the ‘facts’ in which you are so ‘educated’ and firmly rooted. And, though he likely is not 100% correct, as most things/people, most of you ‘attack’ David G. For his point of view. His message as I see it is one one of not deeply rooting yourself in any particular idea. Educate yourself with that which others have already discovered, but simply use it as a tool to make your own assumptions. And, if you are so driven and/or educated in doing so, test your theories. THIS is how progress is made. Men like Einstein did not make such leaps and bounds because he was so hellbent on proving others’ theories right. But, he was clever and imaginative. Even if you look back to early science, most early scientists were philosophers – great thinkers.
There is an apparent high level of intelligence going to waste here with nonsensical arguments and ramblings.
I urge all of you – open your minds, be free thinkers. Learn both sides. Then, transform your immense knowledge into progress through imagination, and more yet, cooperation. Don’t play the role of the atheist or the christian. Be a person in search for the truth. Be revolutionary. And with this, you will succeed where most science and religion has failed.

Leave a Reply

Name (or enter "anonymous")

Mail (optional)(will not be published)

Website (optional)

Currently you have JavaScript disabled. In order to post comments, please make sure JavaScript and Cookies are enabled, and reload the page.Click here for instructions on how to enable JavaScript in your browser.